Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 6 – uploaded by Jesse Michel

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 5. Moderating effects of demographic variables on hypothesized family domain antecedents and FWC Note: k,, number of samples cumulated; k, number of samples in regression analysis; 6, standardized beta weight for moderator. Marital status was coded as percentage of sample participants who were married or living with partner, with values ranging from 1 =20% or less currently married or living with partner to 6 = 100% currently married or living with partner. Parental status was coded as percentage of the study sample with children, with values ranging from | = 20% or less parents to 6 = 100% parents. Gender was coded as percentage of female participants within the sample, with values ranging from | = 0% female to 12 = 100% female. x. onnge

Table 5 Moderating effects of demographic variables on hypothesized family domain antecedents and FWC Note: k,, number of samples cumulated; k, number of samples in regression analysis; 6, standardized beta weight for moderator. Marital status was coded as percentage of sample participants who were married or living with partner, with values ranging from 1 =20% or less currently married or living with partner to 6 = 100% currently married or living with partner. Parental status was coded as percentage of the study sample with children, with values ranging from | = 20% or less parents to 6 = 100% parents. Gender was coded as percentage of female participants within the sample, with values ranging from | = 0% female to 12 = 100% female. x. onnge

Related Figures (7)

Figure 1. Proposed model of work—family conflict
Figure 1. Proposed model of work—family conflict
Table 1. Summary of included constructs and definitions Supervisor support Coworker support
Table 1. Summary of included constructs and definitions Supervisor support Coworker support
Table 1. (Continued) Amount of instrumental aid, emotional concern, informational, and/or appraisal functions from the family unit Amount of instrumental aid, emotional concern, informational, and/or appraisal functions from the spouse
Table 1. (Continued) Amount of instrumental aid, emotional concern, informational, and/or appraisal functions from the family unit Amount of instrumental aid, emotional concern, informational, and/or appraisal functions from the spouse
Table 2. Effects of work domain, family domain, and personality antecedents on WFC Note: Higher values indicate higher levels of the construct. Type of Job: Low = lower rank/level, high = higher rank/level. k, number of samples; NV, number of participants; r, sample size weighted mean observed validity; p, r corrected for unreliability; CV, credibility interval; SD p, standard deviation of ; % Variance, the percentage of variance in effect sizes that was accounted for by statistical artifacts and sampling error.
Table 2. Effects of work domain, family domain, and personality antecedents on WFC Note: Higher values indicate higher levels of the construct. Type of Job: Low = lower rank/level, high = higher rank/level. k, number of samples; NV, number of participants; r, sample size weighted mean observed validity; p, r corrected for unreliability; CV, credibility interval; SD p, standard deviation of ; % Variance, the percentage of variance in effect sizes that was accounted for by statistical artifacts and sampling error.
Note: Higher values indicate higher levels of the construct. Type of Job: Low = lower rank/level, high = higher rank/level. k, number of samples; N, number of participants; r, sample size weighted mean observed validity; p, r corrected for unreliability; CV, credibility interval; SD p, standard deviation of p; % Variance, the percentage of variance in effect sizes that was accounted for by statistical artifacts and sampling error. Table 3. Effects of work domain, family domain, and personality antecedents on FWC
Note: Higher values indicate higher levels of the construct. Type of Job: Low = lower rank/level, high = higher rank/level. k, number of samples; N, number of participants; r, sample size weighted mean observed validity; p, r corrected for unreliability; CV, credibility interval; SD p, standard deviation of p; % Variance, the percentage of variance in effect sizes that was accounted for by statistical artifacts and sampling error. Table 3. Effects of work domain, family domain, and personality antecedents on FWC
Note: k,, number of samples cumulated; k, number of samples in regression analysis; 6, standardized beta weight for moderator. Marital status was coded as percentage of sample participants who were married or living with partner, with values ranging from 1 = 20% or less currently married or living with partner to 6 = 100% currently married or living with partner. Parental status was coded as percentage of the study sample with children, with values ranging from 1 = 20% or less parents to 6 = 100% parents. Gender was coded as percentage of female participants within the sample, with values ranging from 1 = 0% female to 12 = 100% female. x EONS: *n-NN1 Table 4. Moderating effects of demographic variables on hypothesized work domain antecedents and WFC
Note: k,, number of samples cumulated; k, number of samples in regression analysis; 6, standardized beta weight for moderator. Marital status was coded as percentage of sample participants who were married or living with partner, with values ranging from 1 = 20% or less currently married or living with partner to 6 = 100% currently married or living with partner. Parental status was coded as percentage of the study sample with children, with values ranging from 1 = 20% or less parents to 6 = 100% parents. Gender was coded as percentage of female participants within the sample, with values ranging from 1 = 0% female to 12 = 100% female. x EONS: *n-NN1 Table 4. Moderating effects of demographic variables on hypothesized work domain antecedents and WFC
Figure 2. Final meta-analytic model of work—family conflict. Note: Antecedents in bold font are predictors of both WFC and FWC; antecedents in regular font are predictors of the hypothesized relationship only; antecedents in italic font are predictors of the non-hypothesized relationship only. Dotted lines represent non-hypothesized relationships. Corrected correlations are reported. a=see Tables 4 and 5 for direction and magnitude of moderation effects
Figure 2. Final meta-analytic model of work—family conflict. Note: Antecedents in bold font are predictors of both WFC and FWC; antecedents in regular font are predictors of the hypothesized relationship only; antecedents in italic font are predictors of the non-hypothesized relationship only. Dotted lines represent non-hypothesized relationships. Corrected correlations are reported. a=see Tables 4 and 5 for direction and magnitude of moderation effects
Related topics:
Organizational BehaviorPsychologyBusiness and ManagementWork Family Conflict
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved